Eight and Counting: Parnell Signs Alaska Firearms Freedom Act

Today, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell signed House Bill 186 (HB186), the Firearms Freedom Act. It passed the House by a vote of 32-7 and the Senate by a vote of 18-1. Alaska now joins Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, and Arizona as the eighth state to have passed the act into law.

The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce between the states and 18 USC 922 makes it unlawful for any person not licensed as a manufacturer or dealer in firearms to engage in the business of manufacturing or dealing in firearms. Collectively, the Interstate Commerce Clause and 18 USC 922 are used by the federal goverenment as a means to regulate firearms.

The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act addresses this by exempting firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in the state from all federal firearm control laws including registration, as firearms that meet these criteria cannot be regulated by the federal government because they have not traveled in interstate commerce.

In a prepared statement, the Act’s sponsor, Representative Mike Kelly said: “The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act frees Alaskans from overly-bureaucratic and restrictive federal firearm regulation, and allows our state to assume the responsibility for regulation. The Interstate Commerce Clause is used by the federal government to regulate firearms that cross state borders. The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act makes it clear that Alaskans will be responsible for firearms that are made in Alaska, for use in Alaska, and have ‘Made in Alaska’ stamped on them.”

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state’s citizens.

Although the principle under which this law was written, and passed, is respectable, it just substitutes one level of governance for another. How so? By exempting firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in the state, the state has taken the responsibility to make sure they stay in the state. The law does not address how they are to accomplish this. Is the state of Alaska going to man all entry points and inspect for such items, insuring that they stay in the state?
What happens when, not if, any of these items find their way outside of the state, will the state then be held liable for any harm they caused?

This one seems simple, as the threat is really from the feds. The feds have to prove that your weapon has parts from elsewhere. If they do, your not covered.
The real question is enforcement. The feds have clearly made the commerce clause their vehicle for complete control. They will claim that your NOT purchasing out of state weapon parts effects interstate commerce, and claim jurisdiction anyway.

It would appear the Alaska legislature and governor fall short of completely nullifying federal law. This is why I am running for State House. We need strong legislators standing up for the people against Washington D.C..

What one does on paper is one thing, but what ones does to defend what they have put on paper, is another. Just how far the states are willing to go to enforce their legitimate rights shall be the real test of their resolve. While it's refreshing to finally hear the states talking the talk, it will be of far more interest to see if they will walk the walk. Declaring or exercising ones rights, absent the commitment to defend them at all costs, emasculates the freeman and renders his rights void. All rights exist only to the degree one is willing to sacrifice for them.

Nullification actions of this type consitute a useful first step in restoring state soverignity. But to move forward, we need state action on a host of less prominent and more controversial issues. The federal miminium wage, for example, cannot apply to employees whose employers are in the same state- no interstate commerce! The same case can be made for the regulation of unions where the employer and the employee are located within the same state. Etc,etc! We must elect state legislators willing to move forward on a broader front.